Armed guards in schools?

The NRA today announced that they would support congressional legislation to fund armed guards in schools to protect teachers and students from gun violence.  The following is part of their statement.  Do you believe that this proposed measure would be an effective solution to the problem it is meant to address?  If not, what would you suggest?

13 responses to “Armed guards in schools?”

  1. sophiae7 says :

    In theory it would be nice to have the best and most security in schools in order to protect students and teachers. But, at the same time having this kind of protection in schools would change the dynamic of school all together. I know that I would’ve been absolutely terrified in elementary school if I walked in to school everyday and immediately saw and armed police officer. I believe that a more realistic and less ominous solution for schools is to have a more high-tech surveillance program that would be able to monitor the activities of the people in the school and also make it harder for visitors to gain access to the building. Even though it might be a longer and harder road for the government, I think it is also necessary for them to change the process of owning guns in America.

  2. benjamin1 says :

    Having an armed guard in every school hardly seems like an effective solution to the problem. The problem isn’t just shootings in schools, which are infrequent, it is shootings altogether. The most recent gun-related tragedy is just one of many horrific incidents that have occurred this year in various types of locations. Putting armed guards into place might prevent an attacker from killing people, but doing so only in schools adresses only one small facet of the issue, and puts-off dealing with gun-control directly and effectively.

  3. Crawford4 says :

    Honestly this proposal of armed guards in schools is narrowing down the larger problem into this one example of gun violence and mass killing. The NRA is avoiding the larger discussion by proposing a solution to mass shootings in schools while ignoring those happening in shopping malls, movie theaters and colleges. With that in mind. For this specific issue its not a bad idea. Sure it wont guarantee the safety of kids, nothing will, but its a step in the right direction. Looking at the larger scope of things there needs to be a ban on hi caliber rifles and extended magazines. But there also has to be a solution for mental health and video game and violence in movies. Liberals want to keep the debate on guns and conservatives want the debate to shift over to violence in hollywood. Also frequently liberals criticize conservatives on not taking any steps in gun restrictions if it doesn’t solve the whole problem and yet those same people say an armed guard will not solve the whole problem, but i believe it will at least help.

  4. katiepetrino4 says :

    Would an armed guard at every school prevent school shootings? Probably. But does it address the larger problem of guns falling into the hands of the wrong people? Absolutely not. Does it stem the sale of large magazines that the allow rapid firing of many, many bullets? Again, no. Looking at the Brady Campaign’s (a bias source, of course) numbers is startling. Steps need to taken to reduce the number of guns in this country. A large part of my family is from the South and hunt for sport. But even they agree that high powered assault-style rifles are not necessary for hunting. Those types of guns are killing machines designed for military use, not civilian operation. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban that expired in 2004 should be reinstated.

    Of course, one could argue that guns don’t kill people; people kill people. I contend that that is a logical fallacy. However, if that is the case, then why aren’t we addressing that issue? Most of the debate following the horrific events at Sandy Hook surrounds guns, but there is a mental illness component that is being largely ignored. Rather than armed guards, schools need more counselors trained to identify behaviors that could indicate violent actions in the future.

  5. andreaj7 says :

    I agree with Sophia in that the protection by armed guards would change the dynamic of a school environment. Instead of following this proposed measure, I think it would be more effective and efficient to have government officials or interest group members come to schools and teach the proper components of school lockdowns at all levels. At PDS, we do practice lockdown drills, but only at the first level. I believe it is essential for all members of a school community to familiarize themselves with all lockdown procedures, with the hopes of preventing something horrific like the Newtown shooting from happening again.

  6. Liz7 says :

    Armed guards address a symptom, not the illness that causes mass shootings. The guards would not stop school shootings from being plotted and executed, they would just be another factor in the casualties. The idea that a handful of guards with guns in an enormous public could stop a body-armored shooter with an assault rifle is far too optimistic. I don’t believe the NRA can ever be convinced to abandon their “good guy with a gun” theory, but I propose they redirect it. Despite the media attention, school shootings are statistically very, very rare. So why not put the protection where shootings occur most often and take the most lives: the inner city ghettos of Detroit, New York, Chicago, and every major city in the US. Logistically, it would be incredibly difficult. But why waste government funding and police personnel in schools that only have a slight chance of being harmed, when hundreds of lives could be saved in cities where homicide occurs literally once a day. This would not only protect inner-city kids, but prevent them from joining the growing group of angry young adults with guns and the inclination to hurt people.

  7. mattgiannottione says :

    I personally support the idea of having well trained, disciplined, and vigilant armed guards in schools. We all hear about the mass shootings that happen at schools but what we don’t hear are all the shootings that never formulate or about bomb threats that are called in all over the country in many schools. Literally five days after the CT shooting, the high school down the road from my house, Council Rock North, closed down due to a call in of a potential shooting. These armed guards would be for not only immediate response but also act as a deterrent to future attackers. There are deaths at schools other than horrific mass shootings. The difference is that we rarely hear of the singular deaths. These armed guards would most assuredly be worth the effort and I’m sure paranoid parents would sleep more soundly at night knowing there is a immediate response to a mass shooting rather than video cameras powerlessly watching.

  8. Emily1 says :

    I do not support the use of armed guards in schools for protection. While these school shootings are incredibly tragic, they do not occur enough to have an armed guard roaming the halls of every school in the country. There are underlying, much larger issues pertaining to gun control that need to be properly dealt with and agreed on. The funding is also a problem for me. Why waste money on a program that would have so very little use? The number of school shootings is not high enough to justify spending so much money paying armed guards to sit around schools each and every day. I also find a moral issue with having an armed guard wandering the halls of an elementary school. Why should small 8 year old children have to walk into school every day to see a man with a gun on his hip? What is the actual function of the guards? If a shooter enters another entrance of a large public school on the opposite end of the building from the guard, they can certainly do a large amount of damage before the guard has time to control the situation, if they can even do so! It just seems to be an irrational idea that hasn’t been fully thought through. It is a false sense of security that needs to be reconsidered.

  9. megweck1 says :

    The idea of having an armed guard in a school is a well-thought proposal that would certainly add a level of safety and security to a school. Students would get used to seeing the guard, and I doubt it would be scary to kids, especially after a while- at my public elementary and intermediate schools there were often police officers. That said, I oppose the measure for several reasons- this proposal adds even more guns to the solution. I don’t believe that having even more weapons will be an effective solution, especially within a school setting. We need to address gun restrictions as a whole. That is the root of the problem. Mental instability is also a topic worth discussing, but it is simple- the countries with stricter gun regulations also have less gun deaths than those with looser regulations. It is unbelievable that after such a tragedy people are not willing to tighten regulations on guns themselves. Simply instating police officers in schools will give a certain sense of security, but many of the tragedies have occurred in other public places- legislation must address safety in general.

  10. govrobin1 says :

    I believe putting armed guards in schools would in no way increase the safety and security of our schools. The people who commit these shootings in schools are not mentally sound, no one is who would shoot innocent schoolchildren and faculty, and I think that by simply increasing the amount of guards we have at schools and arming them would be counterproductive in the nonviolence initiative. I say this because, the more people you give guns to, the more people will use them in a negative manner. To increase security you should increase access to mental care for those who show symptoms of mental disabilities and inside schools you should increase the practice of different security lockdown procedures.

  11. Tanya4 says :

    Although in theory having armed guards in schools to protect our children would be helpful, fighting guns with guns is not the answer. First of all, employing armed guards at every school (including pre schools?) would change the dynamic completely. Second of all, having armed guards in schools does nothing to make sure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands. This is only addressing a very shallow surface level issue. I think that as Obama has proposed we need to decrease the accessibility of guns by having more background checks, and that semi automatic weapons and magazines need to be banned. I understand the use of less, high capacity weapons but automatic weapons are designed to kill many. You dont need that to “protect yourself.” Another interesting question that will probably stem from the gun control debate is what to do with all the weapons already out there in the US. It will be interesting to see wether there will be any measures regarding this issue.

  12. Nick4 says :

    Does the saying “fighting fire with fire” come to anybody else’s mind? Armed guards won’t help the situation at all. First off, if there were to be a trained guard at PDS, I would want them to be the best of the best. I’m not going to feel safe with a mediocre gun owner patrolling the campus, and neither would anyone else in this country. Properly training guards would be expensive, so chances are the guards in most of the schools would not be truly prepared for a situation like Newtown. Say a gunman comes into the school and opens fire. What’s the guard going to do? Open fire on the gunman? What if there are little children running around? What if the gunman shields himself with a Preschooler? It’s just adding more danger to an already dangerous situation. To be honest I have no issue with an assault weapons ban, but I can see why others would. I think the government needs to pay more attention to the process taken to buy a gun. Right now, it could be as simple as going to a gun show and buying a pistol, no questions asked. If the government actually enforces the requirements, fewer guns would be in the hands of untrustworthy citizens.

  13. jack7 says :

    If you want your preschool to feel more like a federal prison, then by all means, put an armed guard at every door. However, I don’t think that many of you like the idea of waking up from nap time to the image of a combat boot-wearing, bullet-proof vested, pistol-wielding officer patrolling the perimeter of your classroom. It seems positively incongruous with the goals of any institution of education. Moreover, what if a maniac had originally planned to run into a school with knife, but now sees that the guards all have rifles? What will he do? Get a gun, and a firefight could ensue. That does not sound like a safety measure to me. Heightened security measures are certainly necessary, but not through the means the NRA has suggested. I think that swipe cards, locked doors, guard booths, and security cameras are a more logical first step. They, at least, don’t weaponize a school, and even if they are less intimidating, the could be used in conjunction with other methods (which I can’t think of now) to be more effective than an armed guard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: